radarlove:WeenerGord: radarlove: you damn well better expect people with more experience to correct you

All that I expect, is that no matter what you say on Fark, some assclown may pop up and troll you, and sure enough, it continues to happen.

You sure are full of yourself. Where TF do you get all your imagined "experience"? Do you have a horticultural degree?

That's because due to its gigantic userbase, no matter what you say on Fark someone is bound to know more about the subject than you. I don't go into lifeguard threads and say, "Backstroke is clearly better than breaststroke!" because I know shiat all about swimming and I know I'll get my ass handed to me. In fact, there are really only two things that I really know well because there are only two industries that I've spent a considerable amount of time in: the Medical Marijuana industry and the Adult Entertainment industry. I've spent many years in each and so I feel comfortable jumping into discussions about them and contributing. But the fact of the matter is that there is still probably someone on Fark who knows a lot more about growing pot or making smut than I do, and I generally cede to their experience. On any other topic, I pretty much know dick-all and freely admit to it. Except maybe eschatology, but that's just a hobby.

With regards to cannabis, I could spend every single day for the rest of my life learning something new about this plant and still never learn everything about it. It is a beautifully complex plant and I find it to be very humbling to my supposed intelligence and experience.

vudukungfu:radarlove:That's because due to its gigantic userbase, no matter what you say on Fark someone is bound to...Perfectly crommulant redacted... I find it to be very humbling to my supposed intelligence and experience.

How could you have experience in the Adult entertainment industry and not know if back stroke is better than breast stroke?

scottydoesntknow:They said, however, that they did not believe that production will rob the cartels of significant profits, saying instead that they thought Mexican drug lords would instead try to participate in legal production inside the U.S.

Except in my experience mexican weed sucks so much. It stinks like ass, has waaaay too many sticks/seeds, and is dryer than an 80-year-old nun. The only reason people purchased mexican brick weed is because it's the only thing available. If (or when) legalized, the cartels would have to seriously ramp up their production/cultivation methods (which increases costs) or watch as every person passes their "Helado y Molta" push cart and goes into a legal herb shop.

So much THIS. I had a roommate with a medical marijuana card and, as he described the dispensaries to me, they sound wonderful. Multiple high-quality strains to choose from, and the prices were comparable to what you'd pay on the street (for good quality; Mexican ditch weed is much cheaper of course). Plus, the added bonus of having a clean, controlled actual store to buy from. I'd gladly pay more for a high quality, safely available product.

Full legalization isn't gonna happen in my state anytime soon but if even one of these three bills passes I think it'll create a ripple effect, or at least open the dialog in favor of legalization. I think we'll see legalization in my lifetime, maybe not til I'm old and gray but by then I'll probably need the stuff for medical reasons.

radarlove:In fact, there are really only two things that I really know well because there are only two industries that I've spent a considerable amount of time in: the Medical Marijuana industry and the Adult Entertainment industry.

Firethorn:Grammatik Polizei: Mexican cartels get more cash from heroin and meth. I don't think legalized pot will cut into their take much...

/drtfa

I think that most of their profits are from weed - it's just that heroin and meth are higher margin.

Another benefit is that under legalization, you'd have fewer growers out in parks and reserves ready to shoot innocent campers and hikers.

And dumping fertilizer into environmentally sensitive land and waterways. It would be much better to regulate marijuana as any other crop, and I'm sure there would be a demand for certified organic, non-GMO mj.

Tobacco is legal for anyone to grow. in fact, it's actually a very plant when mature and flowering, and many people do grow it as an ornamental plant.

of course, to process it into something smokeable takes the better part of two years. After the growing season, the leaves have to be cut and gathered in a certain way, hung orderly in favorable environment for curing so that they don't rot or mold. and if handled properly and cut appropriately, the flavor will continue and develop with age. and yes, genetics, play a big role as well. when you see tobacco labeled as Virgina leaf, they are referring to the plant, NOT that it was necessarily grown in Virginia. truth be known, most tobacco grown in this country is usually Virginia leaf coming from the Carolinas I have danish grown and cut Virginia leaf that's just a wonderful example of the tobacconists art.

I have some 30 year old pipe tobacco that is phenomenal in a good seasoned pipe, or in a clay pipe so the tobacco shows and not the pipe. robust, almost leathery.. kinda like you are smoking and old book... it tastes better than that sounds, I assure you.

Point is.. any one can grow and cure their own tobacco, not to many do because its a fairly drawn out and labor intensive process to end up with a quality product. They go to the tobbaconist because it's convient to do so and most people trust the grower or crafts man to do the heavy lifting for them.

MOST PEOPLE

Legalization of Marijuana will follow the same path. there will be producers, and there will be consumers. and there will be FAR more consumers than producers. I seriously doubt if you will just b able to by a flat of seedlings from Lowes, I just don't think that there will be that much actual consumer interest in doing so.not to mention, as far as I know, anyone can grow Hemp and or marijuana if you want to, you just need to purchase the agricultural tax stamp in order to do so, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

and that's not even speaking to the notion that just because the stuff is legalized on a state level, doesn't change the fact that its still tied up in the Volstead act on a federal level.

I don't smoke very often any more. only at home, and if I don't have to work the next day, if I'm hurting. I always keep a little around just for that, and mix it with tobacco when I do.

I want to see it legelized all the way around for everybody though, most notably because I'm against prohibition in it's entirety. but then, I make beer for a living. it's in my best interests to believe so. .

flizzard:scottydoesntknow: signaljammer: The tobacco and beer analogies are weak, because their production requires lots more equipment and time than weed. Funny, people here who shout that growing weed is a mini-Manhattan-project never seem to describe the intricacies they allude to.

//wee bit harder than tomatoes//emphasis on wee

Please stop pretending that growing actual GOOD cannabis is easy. Sure you can just throw some seeds in your backyard and get weed, but to actually have a strain that will kick your ass in one hit takes work.

Hell most people don't grow their own tomatoes, what makes you think they'll suddenly decide to grow cannabis?

Oh I'll "suddenly decide to," because I don't want to eat a handful of tomatoes on a sunny Sunday morning and go for a long walk in the park? I've tried it with tomatoes. It's not the same.

Oh, yes it does. Studies have shown that it does lower intelligence, although minimally.

SquiggsIN:listening to stubborn fools like you, however, does spread ignorance.

Ignorance is a state of being uninformed So, after reading my comments, people actually know less than they did before they read my comments? I have the power to erase knowledge from men's minds!!! Muahahaha!

WeenerGord:SquiggsIN: Refusing to admit you are incorrect when faced with contradicting evidence is a sign of a delusional person. I don't mean to insult you but, perhaps you should seek help.

So now everyone who disagrees with you on the internet requires psychiatric intervention? That's a new low.

SquiggsIN: Cannabis doesn't make people stupid,

Oh, yes it does. Studies have shown that it does lower intelligence, although minimally.

SquiggsIN: listening to stubborn fools like you, however, does spread ignorance.

Ignorance is a state of being uninformed So, after reading my comments, people actually know less than they did before they read my comments? I have the power to erase knowledge from men's minds!!! Muahahaha!

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 324x393]

Tell that to my Genetics Prof. friend with 4 PHDs form Cornell, MIT, and UT. Just sayin.

And the only studies I can find, are in association to the developing brains of children.

WeenerGord:SquiggsIN: Refusing to admit you are incorrect when faced with contradicting evidence is a sign of a delusional person. I don't mean to insult you but, perhaps you should seek help.

So now everyone who disagrees with you on the internet requires psychiatric intervention? That's a new low.

That's not true and Squiggles was wrong for saying as much. You're not a stupid person, or a crazy person, you're simply wrong about one small piece of information and have been very stubborn in your refusal to accept that you were wrong. It's okay, lots of people are like that. My old man is the same way- he thinks he knows literally everything about everything and if you tell him he's incorrect about something he'll shout you down. Lots and lots of folks are like that.

SquiggsIN: Cannabis doesn't make people stupid,

Oh, yes it does. Studies have shown that it does lower intelligence, although minimally.

True, but that was only in adolescents.

SquiggsIN: listening to stubborn fools like you, however, does spread ignorance.

Ignorance is a state of being uninformed So, after reading my comments, people actually know less than they did before they read my comments? I have the power to erase knowledge from men's minds!!! Muahahaha!

I think it would be more accurate to say that you're unknowingly spreading misinformation, which indeed could lead to other people being misinformed as well. You don't have the power to erase knowledge, but you do have the power to alter and influence it. We all do. We are very social creatures and this is largely how we learn- by listening to others. The first step, though, is humbly admitting that you don't know everything and that others out there have something to teach you.

SquiggsIN:vudukungfu : everything you said is accurate except the 2 plants = 1 year supply part. Look at places where cannabis is grown legally and they are not getting those yields even with the best methods. Most plants aren't going to get you more than an ounce or a few at most. Even the highest quality cannabis can be consumed at rates of an ounce a week or more. (I have a cousin that burns about a half an ounce a day)

Just like brewing your own beer or wine, with legalized cannabis there will be ridiculous regulations preventing the sale or transfer to other parties. Most people will seek distributors for the convenience factor. However, just like microbrewers/vintners, there will always be connoisseurs who see their products as an art form and would want to grow their own.

Oh, yes it does. Studies have shown that it does lower intelligence, although minimally.

I have to side with the Weiner on this one. There was a fark-linked article in the past couple of months that indicated that moderate smoking permanently lowered your IQ by a few points.

And there are studies you, the American taxpayer has funded not once, but three times.These studies refute this information. The plant is found to be non-toxic with no, none, not any long term effects.There is a consensus(a "real" one) of these studies for decriminalizing the plant.Your elected officials, both GOP and DFL have totally ignored the advice they spent krillions of your dollars obtaining.Go figure.

radarlove:WeenerGord: radarlove: you damn well better expect people with more experience to correct you

All that I expect, is that no matter what you say on Fark, some assclown may pop up and troll you, and sure enough, it continues to happen.

You sure are full of yourself. Where TF do you get all your imagined "experience"? Do you have a horticultural degree?

That's because due to its gigantic userbase, no matter what you say on Fark someone is bound to know more about the subject than you. I don't go into lifeguard threads and say, "Backstroke is clearly better than breaststroke!" because I know shiat all about swimming and I know I'll get my ass handed to me. In fact, there are really only two things that I really know well because there are only two industries that I've spent a considerable amount of time in: the Medical Marijuana industry and the Adult Entertainment industry. I've spent many years in each and so I feel comfortable jumping into discussions about them and contributing. But the fact of the matter is that there is still probably someone on Fark who knows a lot more about growing pot or making smut than I do, and I generally cede to their experience. On any other topic, I pretty much know dick-all and freely admit to it. Except maybe eschatology, but that's just a hobby.

With regards to cannabis, I could spend every single day for the rest of my life learning something new about this plant and still never learn everything about it. It is a beautifully complex plant and I find it to be very humbling to my supposed intelligence and experience.

Snarfangel:That choice will lead to a loss of $1.425 billion to the cartels if Colorado legalizes, $1.372 billion if Washington approves the ballot measure, and $1.839 billion if Oregon votes yes, the study says.

The plant is found to be non-toxic with no, none, not any long term effects.

Except for lung cancer, but that's no big deal.

Incorrect. Smoking anything produces carcinogens, to be sure, but cannabis has actually been shown to have anti-tumorial benefits, and there are a whole host of ways of indulging in it that do not require combustion and produce zero carcinogens.

The plant is found to be non-toxic with no, none, not any long term effects.

Except for lung cancer, but that's no big deal.

Incorrect. Smoking anything produces carcinogens, to be sure, but cannabis has actually been shown to have anti-tumorial benefits, and there are a whole host of ways of indulging in it that do not require combustion and produce zero carcinogens.

thing is, much of the same could be said of tobacco if you wanted to .MUCH, not ALL..

you can just as easily pack your vaporizer with tobacco as you can with pot.

The plant is found to be non-toxic with no, none, not any long term effects.

Except for lung cancer, but that's no big deal.

Incorrect. Smoking anything produces carcinogens, to be sure, but cannabis has actually been shown to have anti-tumorial benefits, and there are a whole host of ways of indulging in it that do not require combustion and produce zero carcinogens.

You and I both know that most people that partake in intaking weed don't do it through brownies, and/or any other method. I was an 18 year smoker, and I only ate brownies three times during that span. I don't intake any nowadays, and I don't miss it at all.

Yes, it has great benefits when taken in through a vaporizer or through brownies, there is NO argument against that. It's just not nearly the norm in any way, shape or form. A joint (or blunt) is probably at least 75% of the way people partake, and you know that.

The plant is found to be non-toxic with no, none, not any long term effects.

Except for lung cancer, but that's no big deal.

Incorrect. Smoking anything produces carcinogens, to be sure, but cannabis has actually been shown to have anti-tumorial benefits, and there are a whole host of ways of indulging in it that do not require combustion and produce zero carcinogens.

thing is, much of the same could be said of tobacco if you wanted to .MUCH, not ALL..

you can just as easily pack your vaporizer with tobacco as you can with pot.

no idea why you would want to, but it can be done.

why are you arguing with people that fundamentally agree with you?

I'm not arguing with people at all, I'm correcting incorrect information. Who is saying it or what their position is on any given issue is irrelevant to me if the information is wrong.

Tobacco, to the best of my knowledge, does not provide any medical benefits at all much less the anti-cancer benefits that cannabis has been shown to provide. Furthermore tobacco contains carcinogens regardless of whether it is smoked or not. Chewing tobacco will give you oral cancer just as quickly as smoking will give you lung cancer.

Civil_War2_Time:A joint (or blunt) is probably at least 75% of the way people partake, and you know that.

In my experience a pipe, bong, bullet, etc is far more commonly used than joints or blunts. Of course with lower quality that changes. Your main point that smoking is the most often used method of ingestion is correct, but those numbers are changing. Vaporizers in particularl are becoming more affordable, portable and reliable. Edibles I suspect with generally remain fringe. They take a bit longer to come on and can be too much for even seasoned smokers if you eat more than you realize.

The plant is found to be non-toxic with no, none, not any long term effects.

Except for lung cancer, but that's no big deal.

Incorrect. Smoking anything produces carcinogens, to be sure, but cannabis has actually been shown to have anti-tumorial benefits, and there are a whole host of ways of indulging in it that do not require combustion and produce zero carcinogens.

You and I both know that most people that partake in intaking weed don't do it through brownies, and/or any other method. I was an 18 year smoker, and I only ate brownies three times during that span. I don't intake any nowadays, and I don't miss it at all.

Yes, it has great benefits when taken in through a vaporizer or through brownies, there is NO argument against that. It's just not nearly the norm in any way, shape or form. A joint (or blunt) is probably at least 75% of the way people partake, and you know that.

I think your estimation of around 75% of people smoking is probably correct. This is purely anecdotal, but at my old dispensary our sales were split around 60%/40% between herb and edibles. We got a lot of people into vaporizers as well, as we really were a "health first" kind of dispensary that tailored to people with severe conditions, but I'm certain that a fair amount of our customers were smoking.

NOW, that being said, the original statement that you replied to was this:

"The plant is found to be non-toxic with no, none, not any long term effects."

To which you replied:

"Except for lung cancer"

Which again, I say is incorrect. The plant is not carcinogenic. Smoking is carcinogenic and should be discouraged no matter what is being smoked, but cannabis in and of itself will not give you cancer, and people should be encouraged to use it in a manner that is consistent with improving their health and quality of life.

I realize that we're splitting hairs and getting into semantics at this point, and I apologize for that because you and indeed all of Fark deserve a more robust discussion about the health hazards and benefits of cannabis use.

I was really hoping he'd attempt to support his argument on a topic he knows next to nothing about.

I guess it was just an internet argument where supporting your position is less required the more stubborn you are.

I imagine he's left work and is now walking into a bar so he can tell the bartender that, although he's never had a drink in his life, he knows that getting drunk on natural fermented berries you find on the forest floor is better than any of the hundreds of bottles they have in their bar because that's for 'Alcohol snobs".

Civil_War2_Time:I am in complete agreement that it has its benefits, and once my lung cancer sets in from smoking so much of it, I'll probably be eating brownies and using a vaporizer to handle the chemo.

Show me one case of someone getting lung cancer strictly from smoking marijuana.

I was really hoping he'd attempt to support his argument on a topic he knows next to nothing about.

I guess it was just an internet argument where supporting your position is less required the more stubborn you are.

I imagine he's left work and is now walking into a bar so he can tell the bartender that, although he's never had a drink in his life, he knows that getting drunk on natural fermented berries you find on the forest floor is better than any of the hundreds of bottles they have in their bar because that's for 'Alcohol snobs".

Wasilla Hillbilly:Civil_War2_Time: A joint (or blunt) is probably at least 75% of the way people partake, and you know that.

In my experience a pipe, bong, bullet, etc is far more commonly used than joints or blunts. Of course with lower quality that changes. Your main point that smoking is the most often used method of ingestion is correct, but those numbers are changing. Vaporizers in particularl are becoming more affordable, portable and reliable. Edibles I suspect with generally remain fringe. They take a bit longer to come on and can be too much for even seasoned smokers if you eat more than you realize.

I'm not arguing trends or anything like that. The "No. None." comment is just not factual in any way.

The plant is found to be non-toxic with no, none, not any long term effects.

Except for lung cancer, but that's no big deal.

Incorrect. Smoking anything produces carcinogens, to be sure, but cannabis has actually been shown to have anti-tumorial benefits, and there are a whole host of ways of indulging in it that do not require combustion and produce zero carcinogens.

You and I both know that most people that partake in intaking weed don't do it through brownies, and/or any other method. I was an 18 year smoker, and I only ate brownies three times during that span. I don't intake any nowadays, and I don't miss it at all.

Yes, it has great benefits when taken in through a vaporizer or through brownies, there is NO argument against that. It's just not nearly the norm in any way, shape or form. A joint (or blunt) is probably at least 75% of the way people partake, and you know that.

I think your estimation of around 75% of people smoking is probably correct. This is purely anecdotal, but at my old dispensary our sales were split around 60%/40% between herb and edibles. We got a lot of people into vaporizers as well, as we really were a "health first" kind of dispensary that tailored to people with severe conditions, but I'm certain that a fair amount of our customers were smoking.

NOW, that being said, the original statement that you replied to was this:

"The plant is found to be non-toxic with no, none, not any long term effects."

To which you replied:

"Except for lung cancer"

Which again, I say is incorrect. The plant is not carcinogenic. Smoking is carcinogenic and should be discouraged no matter what is being smoked, but cannabis in and of itself will not give you cancer, and people should be encouraged to use it in a manner that is consistent with improving their health and quality of life.

I realize that we're splitting hairs and getting into semantics at this point, and I apologize for that be ...

Yes, we're splitting hairs, but I will never agree that it is not a Carcinogen if smoked in abundance...like I have done. And, good for you that you helped people with providing it in a legal and safe way.

And that leads me into a reply to TheJoe03.

Who in the history of the world has ever JUST smoked weed, and nothing else? There's ALWAYS something else they have smoked...if just once. Maybe it takes only one cigarette, or 500 joints, or one Salvia hit that causes Cancer. Who knows. Nobody has ever studied people that have just smoked weed in their lives, so that study will never come about. Ever.

I don't want it legalized, but wholly decrinalized for small amounts (~1/4 oz.) in ALL states.